I think it called for people to work better with automation.

I will gladly split the difference, and say both.

In a nutshell, It called for people to be better trained on their equipment, manufacturers to better design the man-machine interface, and pilots to exercise better airmanship with regards to judgement and keeping hand flying skills fresh.

 

No one can disagree with any of that whether or not aircraft continue to be more automated. Whoever is flying a plane needs to completely understand how it works whether it is a Piper Cub or 787. Just because an aircraft is more autonomous does not mean that the humans involved with its operation do not have to achieve a synergy with each other's strength's and weaknesses. The adoption of drone technology in airliners will be no different than the adoption of turbine power, autopilots, glass cockpits, gps, etops, or onboard coffeemakers. It is merely one more step in the continued progression of technology to achieve better economies and safety.

Nothing to disagree with on any of that.

 

(Still wont get on one, though)  :lol:

Using the Trek reference, I'm reminded of a line:

 

"Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them..." -- Spock

 

And, when human based programming is combined with advanced, autonomous, computerized technology... you end up with this...

 

 

We don't yet know whether the ASIANA crash at kSFO was caused by human error or mechanical failure.

But we do know that three humans in the cockpit failed to prevent it.

january

 

The early verdict from the media (taken with a grain of salt) is that some of the foreign airline pilots are overly-reliant on the automated procedures (ILS approach) and are uncomfortable with  or unused-to hand-flying the entire landing (Visual approach).  The ILS for the 28's at KSFO had been turned off because the runway threshold was being shortened.  This forced a visual-only landing protocol for those runways. Sadly, the Asiana pilots were used to the ILS landing (almost fully automated) approach, and had real problems judging the proper descent speed and altitude on the visual.

 

It has been suggested that the three of them basically ignored the minima airspeed and by the time they realized they were going to be short (of the proper touchdown point), the plane simply couldn't accelerate back to climb speed and wound up with a tail-strike short of the runway.   

 

The issue is a a touchy one.  No matter which side of the automation question you are on, both people and automatic equipment are subject to failures and errors. Some foreseeable, others preventable, still others we haven't even thought of yet.

 

How about the pilots that landed their Dreamlifter at the wrong airport?  Kevin is correct - automation will come, because it costs less.  And the marketers will figure out a way to make us accept it.  Honestly, when you consider what airplanes cost to purchase, fuel, staff and maintain, it's astounding to me that ANY airline even exists, much less makes a profit.  Oftentimes the government is involved via subsidies.  And of course the airlines negotiate fuel prices far into the future (think Southwest) and don't pay what PP's do at the airport for fuel.

 

A Boeing retiree told me that Boeing could almost give the planes away for free, and make it up off the parts sales.  Every nut, bold and DZUS fastener on modern (U.S.) airplanes has to be F.A.A. certified.  So that really limits where you can buy the parts, and has an upward impact on price points for those parts.

 

When I recently toured the Everett, WA. KBFI plant, I was shocked at the MSRP for the big Boeing jets.  Sure, I know they 'cut deals' based on order size, and other factors, but still, it's a BUNCH of bucks to buy a new airplane in your choice of colors, including OnStar and heated seats!

It's pointless speculating about the Asiana accident until the NTSB publishes its report and the facts are known.

Remember BA38 and AF447? There was enough uninformed speculation in the forums to float a battleship.

To which I might reply with the examples of United Airlines Flight 232, Eastern Airlines flight 935, the Baghdad DHL Shootdown Attempt, The aforementioned Sullenberger incident and others where the adaptability and ingenuity (and desperation!!!)  of humans saved themselves in out-of-the envelope situations where an automated system would almost certainly not have been able to cope.

 

Actually there was a guy at my university who did his MSc thesis on the development of self-learning algorithms with the express purpose (in the distant future) of allowing flight computers to work out alternative control strategies in case of failures. It's not unthinkable that within a decade or two we will have computers that will be capable to deal with United 232 / DHL type incidents. Whether they then use that adaptability to execute their autonomously determined route, or to switch the stick from controlling the ailerons to differential thrust instead is of course a different matter.

 

Personally I think the public's acceptance of pilotless airplanes will be a lot smoother if driverless cars become a thing.

There's an interesting discussion over at A.net about Automation in the General Aviation Forum. ..

 

(I know that A.net links are a no-no, but is that for Photo links only, but do Forum links also apply?)

 

There's an interesting discussion over at A.net about Automation in the General Aviation Forum. ..

 

(I know that A.net links are a no-no, but is that for Photo links only, but do Forum links also apply?)

 

The main problem with A.net is that they are (rightly) very protective of the copyrights on photos published there. Best to check with one of the Avsim staff whether links to the forum are ok though.

J-A,

 

Thanks for the tip; I have done just that! Sure don't want to rock the boat...

 

 

EDIT: With some guidelines from Tom A. (and thanks again), here is the link to the Discussion...

 

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5924934/